SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hubble Space Telescope observations suggest that the exoplanets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 in the habitable zone could have water on their surfaces, while the planets closer to the star have likely lost any surface water they may have had:
An international team of scientists, led by Swiss astronomer Vincent Bourrier of the Observatoire de l'Université de Genève, used the [Hubble] space telescope to study the amount of ultraviolet light hitting the planets and measure the amount of hydrogen these worlds are venting into space. The results suggest the innermost planets, TRAPPIST-1b and TRAPPIST-1c, could have lost as much as 20 Earth-oceans-worth of water in the last eight billion years. The outer planets, however, including e, f, and g, which orbit in the habitable zone, would have lost less water, and could still retain vast stores of liquid water on the surface.
[...] The researchers used Hubble to measure the amount of ambient hydrogen floating around the TRAPPIST-1 planets as well as the intensity of ultraviolet light coming from the host star, an ultracool dwarf star. The amount of ultraviolet radiation coming from TRAPPIST-1 suggests the inner planets could have lost an enormous amount of water over the eons, something that is supported by the abundant hydrogen surrounding the planets—a possible indicator of water vapor. Most importantly, the radiation hitting the outer planets and the amount of hydrogen surrounding them suggests these worlds, similar to Earth in many ways, might still retain atmospheric water vapor and even liquid water on the surface.
[...] Whether or not these planets could actually support life is still an open question. First of all, the observations from Hubble are not conclusive, and further observations from other observatories as well as computer simulations are required to support or dispute the possibility of water on the TRAPPIST-1 planets.
"While our results suggest that the outer planets are the best candidates to search for water with the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, they also highlight the need for theoretical studies and complementary observations at all wavelengths to determine the nature of the TRAPPIST-1 planets and their potential habitability," says Bourrier.
Also at Hubble News and Space.com.
Temporal Evolution of the High-Energy Irradiation and Water Content of TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @12:49PM (8 children)
Why use this weasel wording like "X suggests Y could Z"? It looks pretty shady, not to mention unsophisticated. Its like something a person would write if they were certain about their conclusions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday September 01 2017, @02:19PM (1 child)
Maybe the data gives this as the most probable, but not as the only possibility? I mean, ordinary people like to jump to conclusions, but scientists are typically more careful.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @07:20PM
This title is not using weasel wording: "Hubble Spots Possible Evidence of Water on Earth-Sized TRAPPIST-1 Planets"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a28018/hubble-spots-possible-evidence-of-water-on-earth-sized-trappist-1-planets/ [popularmechanics.com]
It correctly conveys uncertainty without a bunch of "suggests", "coulds", "woulds", 'maybes", etc. One "possibly" is enough.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @03:11PM
I think what they are saying is that X are consistent with the hypothesis that Y Zs, but there could be other explanations for X besides Y Z-ing.
Essentially, X doesn't disprove the hypothesis that Y Zs, more studies should be used to confirm that Y does, in fact, Z.
At least that is how I read X suggests that Y could Z.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 01 2017, @04:30PM
Weasel wording = accurate wording.
It turns out it is tough to tell what's going on 39.5 light years away.
It would be shady if I wrote "Water Found on TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by MyOpinion on Friday September 01 2017, @08:22PM (2 children)
Because the whole operation is a hoax on your tax money, is one theory: nobody, not one, _dares_ assume responsibility for the "Hubble Space Telescope". It is a hot potato ready to burst. You may proceed and call the team on the phone and hear it for yourself.
By the sub-director's own admission, NASA is NOT tracking Hubble, which to me sounds like a fancy way of saying "we have no idea where it is".
"Hubble" presumably has a much higher altitude than the Atlantis mission that serviced it. How did it put itself back into that orbit without propulsion? It got no boost from Atlantis.
"Hubble" cannot be seen from the "ISS" either. How so? It should be trivial to point one of those potent lenses out of a window and shoot.
The only person that I know of claiming to actually track "Hubble" is a (rather unconvincing) youtube channel named "Live Astronomy". No backing up from professional scientists.
To me it seems that "Hubble" is, at best, the "stratospheric" aircraft-mounted infrared telescope [usra.edu]. At worst, this is complete and total malfeasance on the back of the US and the international taxpayer.
Trivia: NASA's budget is more than FIFTY (50) million dollars per day.
Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:45PM (1 child)
http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=20580U [satview.org]
(Score: 0) by MyOpinion on Saturday September 02 2017, @08:14PM
So your argument is that "Hubble" exists because a tracking webpage exists?
How about Tate's satellite webcam [tate.org.uk]? Does this look legit to you?
Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @01:19AM
Nothing weasely at all. There is just a vast shocking chasm between what is presented ("artist's impression") and the actual reality of the data or observation.
See this Youtube video: "Why Astronomers Love Python and You Should Too" (32 min)
https://youtu.be/W9dwGZ6yY0k [youtu.be] ... about 4 minutes in. Watch the whole thing, it is well worth the time!